Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (15 January),
	That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords], which were originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, may have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills ).—(The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
	Hon. Members: Object.
	 The debate stood adjourned; to be resumed on Thursday 19 March.

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (15 January),
	That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill, which were originally introduced in this House in Session 2007-08 on 22 January 2008, may have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).— (The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
	Hon. Members: Object.
	 The debate stood adjourned; to be resumed on Thursday 19 March.

Si�n Simon: I do not believe that there is much hard data on this, but I can confirm that there is an issue in more rural areas, where there is likely to be fewer large employers and less heavy industry, so perhaps there is less of a tradition of apprenticeships. To tackle that, we are developing and extending group training associations and what we call apprenticeship training associations, which are different types of confederations and sharing systems for apprenticeships, so that the smaller businesses that are more likely to be found in rural areas are able to provide apprenticeships. When the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill is passed and we have a national apprenticeship service, one of the first things it will do is go out into the harder-to-reach parts of the country, to spread the word and the practice of apprenticeships.

Harriet Harman: Perhaps I may start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for the correction that he has made in respect of Lord Myners. The hon. Gentleman has acted appropriately: he said something, it was pointed out that it was wrong, and he has come to the House at the next opportunity to put it right. I thank him for that, and I think that he has done exactly right.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the debate on the economy. Since the credit crunch began to take effect as a result of the global financial crisis, this House has had constant accountability on the economy through oral statements, Bills, questions raised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, and topical debates. It is for the Opposition to choose the subject of an Opposition day debate, and for next week's they have chosen the economy. It is for the Government to determine which Minister to put forward.
	The Liaison Committee's report pays tribute to, or at least acknowledges, the Government's concern to provide greater accountability to the House. As for regional Committees, we think that it is important that the massive agencies with big regional reach are properly accountable to the House. They are making a huge difference in every region by injecting capital and improving skills, but the spate of what I would call misleading points of order implied that there was something untoward about the first set of regional Committee meetings. That is absolutely wrong: the normal process is that, when members of a Committee are selected [ Interruption. ] It is not the case that they did not turn up. When members of a Committee are selected, it is for the most senior to arrange with the Clerks when the meeting should be held. Most of the meetings have been held this week: some will be held today, and the remaining one or two will be held next week.
	The regional Committees will go ahead with their work of holding regional agencies to account for the hundreds of millions of pounds that they spend, and I suggest to Opposition Members that they join that work. They too should be concerned about the Highways Agency, the Learning and Skills Council and the strategic health authorities, all of whose actions should be scrutinised at regional level as well as on the Floor of the House.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the encampment in Parliament square. There will be Justice questions next week, and I suggest that he raise the matter then. He will hear what the plans are to deal with it.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the point about the shameful demonstrations in Luton, something that I think everyone in the House is concerned about. The local people wanted to welcome the troops back, and I think that we all agree that the counter-demonstrations were deplorable. I think that we all feel struck by the contrast between the freedom of speech that allows people to demonstrate and the conditions in those countries where our soldiers are fighting for democracy, freedom of speech, peace and security, both in the region and in the world.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the accountability of the Department for Communities and Local Government for local spending. Obviously, the Department wants to answer parliamentary questions and be accountable for its spending. There is no attempt not to be open about what we regard a very important programme of ensuring that the police work for greater security. We also work with local communities to ensure that we prevent radicalism and extremism.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for my view on the Welfare Reform Bill. I have always thought that it is a bad thing for a child to be brought up in a house where no one works. That is not just a question of income: it is important for children to see their parents getting up and going out to work every day. That is how children learn that they, too, will be in the world of work when they grow up, not simply expecting to live off benefits. So not only is the work that arose originally from the new deal for lone parentswhich involves more help, more child care and more training for lone parents to get into workgood for their household budgets, but it is good for the children to see that people go out to work, rather than living off benefits.
	The hon. Gentleman made some sideways remarks about me and the rumours of suggested manoeuvrings and all the points made by the shadow Foreign Secretary. When hon. Members stand at the Dispatch Box, it is important that they speak honestly and truthfully and that they do not mislead the House. The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue for a number of consecutive weeks, but there is not one shred of truthnot one iota of truthin any of the suggestions that have been circulated in the newspapers. Although we cannot stop the newspapers reporting them, he can at least respect what I tell him about that and not continue to make those accusations from the Dispatch Box. And, yes, I am wearing my stilettos today.

Michael Clapham: May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to early-day motion 1020, which is in my name?
	 [ That this House is alarmed and concerned to learn from the Information Commissioner's report that the blacklisting of trade union members is widespread in the construction industry; condemns the major construction contractors who subscribed to the Consulting Association and also provided it with information about workers and employees; notes that many of the companies who donated to the Consulting Association are currently engaged on publicly-procured work projects worth billions of pounds; considers that there may be legal implications where for example an employee or worker believes they were dismissed because they were on the list and requests that the Information Commissioner gives a reasonable time for people to make the appropriate checks; and calls on the Government to enact immediately legislation to prohibit the compilation of a blacklist containing the details of workers and employees with a view to them being used by employers or employment agencies to discriminate in relation to employment and to make it a criminal offence for an employer to commission such information. ]
	The early-day motion expresses concern about the fact that the Information Commissioner's report showed that there was blacklisting in the construction industry. Some time ago, we thought that the practice had come to an end. My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that section 3 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 made provision for
	regulations prohibiting the compilation of lists,
	and made it a criminal offence for construction or other companies to make such information available. Will she raise with Justice Ministers the need to bring forward regulations under section 3, and will she consider whether the Information Commissioner should give people whose names are likely to be on such a list more time to check whether that is so, because of the legal implications? Any person who thinks that they have lost their job as a result of discrimination because their name was on such a list will have a claim for unfair dismissal, so the Information Commissioner should give much more time for people to check the list. Does she also agree

Harriet Harman: It is right that the Government should put into the hands of local authorities funds so that they can work with community groups in their area to help divert young people away from extremism and to support community organisations that are trying to tackle extremism. I deplore the idea that some sort of hue and cry is being set up to smear this important programme. If the Opposition want information, the Secretary of State will give them the relevant information and ask for their support for the programme in their areas.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are going through a major crisis in the media. The BBC may end up with a monopoly. Surely we believe in true competition. What will we do to ensure that ITV survives? I cannot understand why we had an announcement that product placement would not go ahead. That would have provided the much-needed funding to ensure that ITV will be there to compete against the BBC. Also, local and regional newspapers and local radio are in dire straits. What can we do to ensure that they survive? May we have a topical debate on the subject? I am still waiting for a debate on the future of pensioner travel on trains and young people's bus passes.

Edward Balls: I appreciate the careful way in which the hon. Gentleman has responded to Lord Laming's conclusions. I shall respond to his points, and I reassure him from the outset that the new national unit and the appointment of Sir Roger Singleton is not just another quango and another adviser. This will have a real impact on the translation of best practice into common practice in all areas of the country. As the hon. Gentleman reflects on the proposal, I hope that he will be able to support it.
	Let me deal with his points in turn. On officials in Haringey, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it was my decision in December to remove the then director of children's services from her position, but the issue of the appointment of staff, their terms and conditions and their continuing appointment is a matter for Haringey council, not for me. These matters are with Haringey at the moment; the council is going through the proper processes, so it would not be wise for me to comment now on the stage they have reached with different officials.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about court fees. I think I set out clearly the reason why we are having a review. It is made clear in Lord Laming's report that there is no evidence to suggest that court fees have led to any change in the number of referrals to the courts. In fact, over recent months, there has been a substantial rise in referrals. As I have cited in the House before, the president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services has said that it is aware of
	no circumstances where a local authority would put court costs as a consideration ahead of the needs of a child.
	We will carry out the review and look carefully at this issue, but unless we can demonstrably show that that statement is absolutely true, we will abolish court fees from the beginning of the coming financial year.
	On the issue of process and targets, we are going to look very carefully at the national targets in our indicator set, which Lord Laming asked us to do, but I urge Conservative Members to be very careful about how they proceed here. We have made substantial progress since 2004; in that year only half51 per cent.of all initial referrals of children at risk were assessed within seven days, whereas the latest figures show more than 70 per cent. doing so, which is a substantial difference. The focus on quick assessment happened because of the targets. It is important that we do not use wrong targets or targets that distort, but it is also right to have rapid assessment of children at risk. I would like to go even further on that, so it will be looked at very carefully by the social work taskforce.
	On integrated children's services and bureaucracy, I have made it clear that hiding behind a computer screen or bureaucracy and procedure is not the right thing to do professionally if we want to keep children safe. That would be the wrong thing to do, and I have asked the social work taskforce to look at all those issues, including the operation of integrated children's services, and to report by the end of April. We are going to move quickly. Only last week, I was in Derby talking to social workers in that city, where I heard their concerns about ICS and saw it operating in practice. I know that many authorities in the country are finding that that system is actually leading to more effective and efficient decision making, speeding up the way in which they can comprehensively get on and do their work. I do not want to throw out the baby with bathwater here, which is why it is important we do this properly. The social work taskforce will take this forward.
	There is often confusion between the common assessment framework and integrated children's systems. In my experience and from what I hear, CAF processes are working well around the country, but if the hon. Gentleman has a different view, I would be happy to hear more about it.
	On the issue of health visitors, it is right to have significant investment, and we have put significant investment into our health system. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is announcing today that, as we prefigured in the child health strategy a few weeks ago, there will be a significant increase in the number of health visitors. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that that happens, but I have to say to him that absolutely the wrong way to do it would be to cut the Sure Start budget, which is there to ensure early intervention and protection of children.
	The fact that many children who come to harm are not known to the authorities should be addressed by our children's centres. To cut children's centresto be honest, to cut the children's budget more widelywould be absolutely the wrong thing to do. I ask the hon. Gentleman to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition and suggest to him that he may need to realign his thinking on that particular point.
	The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his view that serious case reviews should be published. He has also been consistently isolated in holding that view. Not only Lord Laming, but the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Children's Commissioner, as well as pretty much every expert in the field, disagree with him. They all agree that a public, fully comprehensive executive summary, alongside a confidential full report, is the right way to go. The hon. Gentlemanprobably badly adviseddug himself into a hole on that issue in the first few days when it came to light. I say to Conservative Members, Sometimes, if you get it wrong, just change your mind. You are absolutely wrong on this particular issue.
	That takes me to a wider issue. As Lord Laming's report saysthere is a widespread consensus that is reflected across the country, across experts and across professionalsthe 2004 Every Child Matters framework is the right framework for child protection. Our challenge is to implement it effectively in every area. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree, and therefore disagreed with the idea of Lord Laming being asked to produce the report in the first place, but again I say to him, Read the report, reflect and think again. I do not think that to go back on the 2000 reforms would be the right thing to do and, with the exception of the Conservative party, neither does anybody else.
	The right thing to do is ensure that the framework is properly implemented, which is what we will do. In his press conference this morning, Lord Laming said that he hopes that his report has enough compelling logic, enough compelling urgency and enough compelling determination that people can sign up to it. I believe that this is a compelling vision, and we will, with determination, ensure that all the recommendations are now implemented, which is the right way to keep children safe.

Public Accounts

Austin Mitchell: I am dimly aware of that case. It casts a comic light on the whole procedure, but I am concerned about the rush to employ consultants without checking whether people in the Department can do the work. The problem is that we seem to need to reassure ourselves of the value of any change by getting it authenticated in a consultants' report.
	We need tighter management, so that those firms of consultants that have failed, or whose reports have proved inadequate, are excluded from future contracts. That lack of control is another problem but, although I have spent so much time talking about consultants, it is not a matter that appears in any of the reports that we are dealing with today. I shall therefore move on, delicately and gently, to another common obsessionthe private finance initiative, which our Chairman mentioned in his speech.
	More than 600 PFI projects have gone through so far, and more than 100 are in the pipeline. We are reaching a difficult moment, as many PFI contractssuch as Building Schools for the Future, and othersare crumbling because of the credit crunch, with the private sector no longer able to provide the necessary credit.
	This is an emergency, and it is interesting that the Government have said that some projects will be paid for out of the public purse. In my view, that is what they should have done in the first place. In this country, the PFI amounts to a sort of outdoor relief for capitalism: we shove money into the pockets of the private sector, at no great risk to it or benefit to us. The one benefit to the Government is that the use of PFI keeps projects off the public sector borrowing requirement. If we had been willing to defend borrowing and accept a higher PSBR, we could have done everything more cheaply and efficiently.
	However, PFI is a fact of life. Our report on it dealt with the need for proper project management in the service or sector where the contract work is being done. Again, the Treasury has failed to provide adviceto local government, for example, or the NHSabout how a project should be managed, or to ensure that a proper manager is in place to control the contract.
	When one looks at PFI contracts, one finds all sorts of excesses, such as the management charges that are imposed, for instance when a PFI contract is transferred to a special-purpose vehicle, or when services are provided. One of the more ludicrous examples was the charge for replacing light bulbs. How many PFI contracts does it take to change a light bulb? At the present rate, we might need another PFI contract to find out, but the imposition of management charges in an unsupervised and uncontrolled manner is a way for companies to extort money from a contract. The lack of specific management control by the recipient of a project, and of specific advice from the Treasury about how the project should be managed, is leading to waste.
	That brings me to another common failing: the inability of Departments to deal effectively with business or organised unions and pressure groups. For example, the management of health service contracts for GPs resulted in their being made much wealthier, but there was no dramatic improvement in the service provided to patients. We are now trying to catch up by asking GPs to provide more services and to open for longer hours, but the contract should have provided for such things in the first place.
	We more recently examined the new system of health service pay, and although it is right to provide a proper, effective structure, everyone ended up being better paid. The system did not achieve the purpose of having more effectively trained and qualified staff, although that should have been what the contract was all about. That was a failure.
	We have not considered in these reports further failures in defence issues, but there is an inadequacy in dealing with those big interests and big problems.
	The last common fault that is worth considering overall is that, while we are spending money through the PFI contracts and consultancies, we are less adequate in raising the tax revenues to support doing so. We have been soft on tax avoidance and tax evasion. That comes out in the report on large company tax payments, where the resort of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is to appoint a customer manager to each company to maintain friendly relations, rather using than strict, powerful supervision like the American tax authorities, which are pretty tough on tax avoidance and tax evasion.
	We highlighted the problem of the relative inability of the teams that deal with tax matters and tax havens. Fortunately, we are now committed to dealing with tax havens. I am glad that the Prime Minister has made that a central issue. For many years, we have told HMRC and Treasury Ministers that the issue needs to be dealt with, and they have said, Very interesting. That's slightly shocking. Thank you for the information. We have gone away, and nothing has happened. Now, it will be a front-line issue. Jersey and Guernsey are already saying, Well, we are not tax havens. We're just rather nice islands, with a pleasant existence and a low-tax regime, so please don't call us tax havens. It is a big issue.
	The TUC report on the amount of money lost to the Revenue by tax manipulated through tax havens is startling. What we came across in the report on large companies is that Revenue staff are comparatively underpaid and under-skilled in dealing with the large teams that big businesses and tax consultants can mobilise. They are always leaping one step ahead in developing new devices, and the Revenue is lumbering slowly behind. It now proposes to bring back retired staff and put them into service again, but the problem is one of building up the expertise, paying them sufficiently and keeping them, given all the poaching done by the accountancy houses and big business. It is unsatisfactorythis, too, comes from the customs and excise reportthat the means of bringing in the tax are less well developed than the procedures for spending it. That is the essence of my observations today.
	Not only do we have a problem in ensuring that the reports are implementedon the whole, they arebut the procedure is unsatisfactory for us, because we are always being confronted by officials who are not responsible for the mess that has been created who promise to clean it up and ensure that things work okay. We are making posthumous changes. We are successful in individual reports, but we need to look at the common patterns of failings that produce such reports, because it has become clear over a long period that there are common patterns and that they should be dealt with as a pattern, rather than as specific issues.

John Pugh: One of the most worthwhile things that I do in the House of Commons is serve on the Public Accounts Committee. It is a pleasure, and the comments from hon. Members on both sides of the House today show that we are a very well adjusted group.
	I shall comment briefly on two points that I picked out from the speech made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He mentioned tax havens, which I anecdotally mentioned in a Statutory Instrument Committee, where I did not think that anyone was paying any attention whatsoever. I mentioned the Isle of Man. Within a few days of doing so, a delegation from the Isle of Man arrived, desperate to see me to explain that it was not really a tax haven after all and that it is largely dependent on fishing mackerel and the like.
	On the PFI point, one of my early experiences as a Member of Parliament was voting at a Liberal Democrat party conference against our public service policy, which was then known as the Huhne commission, on the grounds that it gave too much succour to the PFI. That move did me absolutely no good in terms of my promotion prospects in the party, but none the less there is a virtue in being right.
	Yesterday, I was involved in a debate where the Financial Secretary to the Treasury defended tax office closures, which is a tough call. I have got a lot of time for the Financial Secretary; he is a rational, reasonable person, who always responds to the points made and never makes forensic, rhetorical or unnecessary points. He made one very good point in the context of this debate. He said that, in a time of recession, when the call goes out for fiscal stimulus and big public spending, it is more important than ever to get value for money for public expenditure, and he is dead right on that point.
	The Government should see the Public Accounts Committee not as an occasional irritant, but as a useful ally, particularly in the eternal quest to get public money spent effectively. That can be done. It is not necessarily the case that the private citizen spends money effectively, as hon. Members will find out if they study any shoppermy wife or whoevernor is it necessarily the case that the public servant spends money profligately. However, it is the case that public servant lacks some of the incentives that a private citizen has to husband resources. Perhaps that is where a theme comes into the PAC. We have all picked out that no one seems to suffer, particularly when money is spent unwisely or when there is simply a bad project.
	A classic example is the Chinook case, which has been aired time and again, but it is self-evident that no one has fundamentally taken the blamepeople have moved up; people have moved on. In many environments, not necessarily with that project, people seem to acquire bonuses irrespective of their actual performance or efficiency. In other words, there seem in Whitehall to be few disincentives for poor performance. That is our concern. Incidentally, there are not simply few disincentives; there are many expensively acquired alibis for poor performancethey are called consultants. Now, as hon. Members have said previously, there is nothing wrong per se with consultants, always providedthis is not always sothat they are unconnected with the suppliers that they recommend.
	There is a lingering anxiety throughout many of our deliberations about the lack of client-side expertise. Recently, we had a session in which we talked about Building Schools for the Futurea massive Government programmeand I inquired about how many people who run that project have any construction experience. I was informed that the bulk of them are lawyers and that very few of them have pertinent experience in construction. I should have thought that Building Schools for the Future would naturally be a magnet for people with some kind of construction experience. However, I am genuinely far from believing that public servants do not want to get things right, and far from believing that they do not get satisfaction from getting things right. There are people whose services we are very fortunate to have, and whose efforts we should applaud; we have mentioned some such instances in this debate. What has eluded not just this Government, but many Governments, is the secret of encouraging optimum performance in public service.
	There is quite a good example in our report on NHS general practitioner contracts. Most people recognise that most GPs do a reasonably good job, but they also recognise that there is scope for progress. The Government and the Department of Health wanted GPs to work harder, more effectively and, in particular, proactively, so that we had a national health service that promoted health, and not a national sickness service that dealt with the problems when people suffered from ill-health. On the face of it, the method that the Department pursued did not seem wrong. In GP practices, good behaviours were incentivised under the quality and outcome frameworks. GPs were relieved of some of their loadout-of-hours work was taken off thembut the result of that plan was far from satisfactory.
	There was a huge cash bonanza for practice doctors, but not, sadly, for the doctors employed by the practice or for nurse practitioners. That was slightly depressing; in a sense, one would expect doctors to reward those who had helped them to get the marks, the rewards and the funds. There has been a boost to preventive medicine, and I do not dismiss that altogether. Clearly, there are certain effects that we are yet to seethere may be benefits to people having their blood pressure taken more regularly and the like. Unquestionably, though, one result of the changes was a rickety out-of-hours service. In sum, the quality and outcomes frameworks that the regime imposed on the doctors undoubtedly got things done that needed to be done, but to be absolutely frank, they also got things done that were simply rewarded. The Government were genuinely surprised by the volume of things that were rewarded that were done, and by the cost of that. When they got the bill, it took them aback.
	What we are proving, I guess, is that micro-management has good and bad effects. One could say, Well, what would be the alternative? Should the Government just let things go on as per usual? Incidentally, I recently discussed with a panel of British Medical Association people what alternative they would have put in place. What they said is quite salutary and worth taking on board. They said that it is healthy to assume a degree of professional pride rather than venal self-interest. If we assume one or the other, we are likely to get it. If we assume that professionals will behave venally, after a while they will be insulted by how they are treated, and they will behave differently as a result. The people from the BMA said, and I agree with them, that professionals are not opposed to benchmarking, transparency or peer comparison; all those things work as incentives for good, professional practice and are probably sufficient in themselves, without duress. Professionalism is not to be equated with self-interest or an absence of self-improvement, and it is certainly not to be identified with that phrase, the producer class.
	On the out-of-hours service, which we also looked at in our report, a different route was taken. GPs have been replaced by businesses, or the curiously named social enterprises, which are supposed to be slightly better than businesses, although I have never seen an adequate definition of a social enterprise. I refer to companies such as Serco, which is probably better known for running trains than for running aspects of the health service. Those businesses are commissioned by primary care trusts. In other words, they are answerable to quangosinexperienced, recently set-up quangos at thatwhich are answerable in turn to the regional health authorities or the Department of Health, but certainly not directly to the people whom they serve. As a result of the way in which the contract was set up, they were given insufficient funds, because costs were deliberately underestimated. That was done for a particular reasonno one wanted the GPs to opt out and back out of the deal. The money was to come from the GP pot. Had the bodies taken more than was needed, or more than the GPs were prepared to bear, there would have been a problem. Across the country, the record shows that PCTs are now having to find extra money to deliver a satisfactory out-of-hours service.
	The result is unquestionably fewer tired doctors. However, it is also more difficulties in communication between the out-of-hours service and GPs. As I have said, there are cost pressures on providers and PCTs, and we have, essentially, a more remote service. If I may make a constituency point, that is certainly true in my area, where much of what is happening appears to be driven by cost. The process has certainly not been consulted on, and it has certainly replaced a superior service. Current provision is failing to integrate with the previously excellent, but now demoralised, district nurse service. In other words, our research and our reports tend to show that throwing out the professionals does not necessarily increase efficiency, value for money or quality of service.
	I shall conclude on this point, because there is something that the Government can learn and are learning from it. A Hegelian dialectic is being played out in government. We once used to think that professionals and public servants do their best and should be left to their own devices to do their best. That was, in a sense, the thesis. We replaced that with the new Labour view that public servants need to be challenged, outsourced, bound to targets, incentivised, micro-managed, plugged into commercial values and, if that does not work, exposed to competition. That was the antithesis, so to speak.
	The evidence suggests that we may gradually be arriving at a satisfactory synthesis, where the public servants and the professionals simply need to have a structure put in place in order to see professional judgment and experience rewarded and encouraged. That is not what happened in the case of the doctors' contract, and it is not what happens time and again, but anything that the PAC can do to facilitate that process is more than welcome.

Edward Leigh: It is not just a choice between buying American and buying US. As we saw with the Chinooks, we can buy US, but what so often happens in the Ministry of Defence is that our own civil servants then gold-plate it. As a result, eight Chinooks have been sitting on the ground unused for eight years. We made the decision to buy American; let us buy off the shelf and get them flying.

Richard Bacon: Indeed. The hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West did not actually say just now that all farmers are thieves, but I have heard him say that before; and he did say on the record that barristers are thieves.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that the right balance had to be struck between talking about reports to the Committee in a way that was not too party political and getting enough attention paid to the issue. It is something I am aware of every time I broadcast on the Committee's work. If I am being critical, I try to be critical of the Department concerned. The hon. Gentleman used the word dull, and one tries to make comments sound non-party political. I go out of my way to avoid ever using the phrase the Labour party when I am broadcasting about Committee matters, because that would simply be inappropriate. Were there to be a change of Government at some point, which is possible, I hope that the same thing would apply if the hon. Gentleman were broadcasting in that way as an Opposition Member.
	In the same spirit, there might be occasions when the hon. Gentleman should think about tempering his words. I represent a lot of farmers, and they are not all rapacious. He will remember the National Audit Office report, and our Committee report, on the case of Joseph Bowden. He was a farmer claiming money under the arable area payments scheme and the fibre flax scheme for territoriesI use that word advisedlythat on closer examination, when one used the entire grid reference rather than part of it, which is all the form had required him to fill in, turned out in one case to be in the North sea between Scotland and Denmark and, in another, to be on the mainland of Greenland. That fraud was brought to the attention of the authorities, not because of the diligence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as it then was, but because of another farmer who realised what was going on and thought that something was odd.
	I also regret that the Committee only narrowly failed to pass a resolution when we had the Duke of Westminster in front of us, as the Assistant Chief of Defence Staff, requiring the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West to address him as Your grace each time he spoke to him, but that is, unfortunately, now water under the bridge.
	I wondered which of the various reports I should focus on. I started the day reeling under the impact of the National Offender Management Service information system report published by the NAO. Although that report is outside the scope of this debate, as we have not even had a hearing on it, many of its themes are relevant not only to the reports before us today, but to the Committee's work in general. The National Audit Office, together with the Office of Government Commerce, agreed in 2002 a list of eight of the most common causes of project failure. The first was the lack of a clear link between the projectwhatever it wasand the organisation's key strategic priorities, including agreed measures of success. The second was a lack of clear senior management and ministerial ownership and leadershipwe certainly saw that in the case of the Rural Payments Agency, and in that of the shared services report from the Department for Transport. The third was a lack of effective engagement with stakeholderswe have seen that in many reports. The fourth was a lack of skills and a proven approach to project management and risk management. The fifth was too little attention to breaking down the development and implementation of projects into manageable steps. The sixth was that the evolution of proposals were driven by the initial price, rather than by considerations of longer-term value for money, especially the delivery of business benefits. The seventh was a lack of understanding of and contact with the supply industry at senior levels of the organisation, and the eighth was a lack of an effective project team working with the clients, supply team and supply chain.
	The report published this morning happened to touch on almost all those factors, in full or in part, but they are common themes we see again and again in different reports. One thing that I hope the Minister will find time to do is to address the role of the Office of Government Commerce in scrutinising and challenging the management of Government projects and in ensuring that Departments are steering projects properly, because I do not think that there is nearly enough evidence to convince us that the system is working properly. The OGC gives advice, for sure, but time and again that advice is put to one side or ignored.
	The Minister will know that applications to the fast track of the civil service are up 30 per cent., which is good news for the civil service. It is unsurprising that that should be the case in these straitened financial times. It gives the civil service a better choice from among those talented graduates, and that is good news. However, I want to know what the civil service is doing at the centre to ensure that the principles of project management and risk managementall the things that the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West described as being seen to be rather dull in some cases, but which are incredibly important for the successful delivery of projectsare tattooed on the eyelids of new entrants to the civil service so that they understand as they join that effective project management and focusing on outcomes are important from that moment on. They need to understand that the civil service is not only about policy advice but, as the Committee Chairman said earlier, about successfully delivering projects. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.
	Our report on the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus speaks on that theme. As was mentioned earlier, the key staff included Mrs. Lesley Strathie, who is now chief executive of HMRC and who started as a clerical assistant in 1974. I was very pleased, as it was a point that I made in the Committee, that one of the recommendations of our report noted the need to focus on the fact that key leadership roles should be taken by people with significant front-line experience who had started at the bottom. The three witnesses had a total of 112 years of experience between them, and because they had started at the bottom, as the poor bloody infantry, they were going to ensure that no project was imposed in a way that could not work at grass-roots level. That was welcome.
	That goes back to the Fulton report and the way its proposals were eventually defeated by William Armstrong, who was then head of the civil service, ensuring that the generalist stream of the civil service remained on top. That has been a 30 or 40-year failure across successive Governments, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on it. I think we are now getting a little more expertise. I always read the CVs of our witnesses, and more and more of them come from the private sector, or have at least some private sector background, which is interesting. They also seem to have genuine expertise in the subject that they are appearing before us to discuss. That is most welcome, but I would like to know what that says about fast-track entry and how it will be integrated into the recruitment process for the future.
	I also wanted to make a point about the report on the Revenue and Customs prosecutions office. David Green, QC, was hired to be director of the prosecutions office, not because he had management experience or knew how to run a budget or how to procure and deliver an IT system, but because he was one of the leading criminal barristers in this country specialising in Revenue work. That was an ideal background for somebody to become director of the Revenue and Customs prosecutions office. He is a leading silk in his area, but that does not mean that the Treasury or civil service, in giving him the responsibilities of an accounting officer, which include ensuring that there is probity in the use of public money and that the proper systems are in place, can assume that a man who is extremely talented in his field will have the requisite expertise in what one might call general management. I asked Mr. Green whether he was familiar with the Treasury document on the responsibilities of an accounting officer, and he said that he had been given it and that he had been on a training course. I asked how long the training course had lasted, and he said, Half a day.
	I think I am right in saying that the Treasury minute in response to the report acknowledges that more must be done for people from different backgrounds who come in as accounting officers. I am glad that that recommendation has been made, although it is slightly worrying that it was necessary. Perhaps it is a consequence of the fact that more people from different backgrounds are coming in from outside the civil service, but it is something that it is important to bear in mind.
	Finally, I want to focus on the comments made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the use of consultants. A lot of flannel is talked about this subject. I have an interest, in that many years agoin the mid-1990s, when there was a Conservative GovernmentI was employed for two years by the trade body representing the consulting industry. I remember someone who worked for one of our member firms saying that he was looking forward to a Labour Government being elected, because that would mean more work for consultants. I asked why that would be, and was told that consultants always get more work whenever there is change. Of course, there has been a great deal more work for consultants since then.
	The public sector needs to be very careful about when it uses consultants. Of course, consultants have been used for a variety of purposes in many of the reports before us. We should not dismiss the possibility of using them, but nor should we assume that must use them.
	There are three classic reasons for using consultantsfirst, because they have an expertise unavailable elsewhere: secondly, because a temporary shortage needs to be filled on an interim basis; and thirdly, because an independent view is required. Those three reasons always apply in the commercial or private sector, but in the public sector one would hope that the independent view came more often from the civil service. However, the knee-jerk tendency that emerged under the previous Conservative Government, and which has continued under this Government, is to reach for consultants. That is because they provide an external and apparently independent endorsement of something that Ministers do not have the confidence to take forward solely on the basis of civil service advice.
	Ministers use consultants for another reasondoing so allows them to say publicly, Well, this is what KPMG has said, as though what KPMG says were a mantra that cannot be disproved. We must be very careful about that, but we must also recognise that there are plenty of occasionsand I mentioned the building of motorwayswhen one would want to employ someone on a temporary rather than permanent basis. When we do that, however, we must make sure that the proper skills are transferred.
	Although I do not go quite as far as my Taliban Friend the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) in the use of ideological language about the corporate state, I have a sneaking sympathy for some of what he said about the use of big firms.
	I met representatives of Microsoft this morning. It is a very big firm, but I was surprised and interested to hear that its representatives were worried about the failure of the public sector to hire small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the IT sector. Because of what it does and supplies, Microsoft gets a lot of business from small and medium-sized entrepreneurial companies that use their products to develop other things for the public sector.
	One point made to me was that the Government are not very good at using SMEs, especially in the IT area, even though they may have fantastic products offering technically advanced solutions and often very good value for money. I know that the Government are aware of that, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on what more can be done.
	I fully accept that there may not always be an alternative to using a big consultancy firm like KPMG or PricewaterhouseCoopers to deliver a big project, and projects set up by the Department for Work and Pensions would be a classic example of that. In the negotiations that have to take place, a big company can tell the Government that it is able to put 1,000 people on the project, with the result that civil servants are reassured that it has the necessary clout.
	However, it seems to meand this is where I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwichthat the other side of the coin is that the big firm has 1,000 people on its payroll whom it has to put on a job somewhere. There is almost a kind of oligopoly at work, and if we are not careful it can shut out the smaller and more agile suppliers that may be able to provide taxpayers with much better value for money.

Angela Eagle: I agree that that is precisely what needs to happen. At the suggestion of hon. Members at the previous occasion when we held this debate, I agreed to write to every permanent secretary asking them to look at the Committee's report on Jobcentre Plus and act accordingly. That is the kind of thing that I can do as a Minister who is not directly responsible for day-to-day management decisions in a Department. I also know that there is a great deal of awareness at the permanent secretary level of the success that has been enjoyed in this instance.
	I want to respond to the questions that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) asked the out-of-hours contract and the Hegelian dialectic. We had revolution from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and an Hegelian synthesis from the hon. Member for Southport. As always, this is an interesting time to debate the Public Accounts Committee's reports, and we are even adding a dash of philosophy just to keep ourselves more interested. The hon. Gentleman asked about the out-of-hours contract. He is right that the new contract initially pushed up GPs' pay, but since then costs have been held back to achieve compensatory savings. More importantly, Health Ministers now have much better control of doctors' pay. They commission services and get what they pay for, which is value for public money. Despite a wobbly start, the overall impact of the changes has been positive, now that there have been further shifts.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) as a new member of the Committee. He has been called a zealot by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson). The hon. Member for Harwich expresses himself with a great deal of ideological certainty and belief. I am sure there will be many vigorous debates and moments of conflict and clash on a Committee that is not usually known for that kind of approach. I know that the hon. Gentleman will enjoy his time on the Public Accounts Committee, as those of us who have been fortunate enough to serve on it in the past inevitably do. I welcome him for the first time to these debates and I certainly hope that it will not be the last time he contributes to our debates as provocatively as he wishes to.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West commented on the number of senior Treasury civil servants who have Oxbridge and public school backgrounds. I have to admit that I do not know the answer. I was interested in what my hon. Friend had to say about it and I will look further into the responses he received to his letter and see whether we can get him a more forthcoming one.  [Interruption.] I was just about to say that it should not be assumed that just because my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West has a particular view of people with public school or indeed Oxbridge backgrounds, there must be something wrong with those people. Speaking as an ex-member of St. John's college, Oxfordactually, I am sure that one is a member of St. John's for lifeI certainly have many happy memories of it.  [Interruption.] Yes, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) does, too, but perhaps the less said about that the better!
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West raised two further points. He asked about the 40th report, which is on the management of expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that since the report was published, we have seen systematic monthly reporting of the Department's financial position to the management board and a new system of portfolio management through senior responsible owners of programmes. There is a refreshed financial management improvement project, which is delivering more effective and focused financial management across DEFRA, including of relationships with the delivery agents. Many might think that that should have been in place as a matter of course, but we can at least be relieved that it is in place now.
	My hon. Friend also asked about the report on the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office. He is right that the system as described was open to exploitation. He did not complete the story, however, as the accounting officer has instituted a new system of control and achieved enormous improvements in efficiency in respect of public spending since that difficult start, which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton also mentioned.
	The hon. Member for South Norfolk asked about the Fulton report and the appropriate balance between generalist and operational effectiveness and experience in the civil service. I suspect that this is a slightly less class-confrontational way of getting at the same issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West in his efforts to find out the educational background and experience of top-flight civil servants. As change management and the experience of delivering change in already complex existing organisations goes higher up the scale in terms of the Government's requirements, it becomes increasingly important for senior civil servants responsible for managing Departments in new and fresher ways to look into this balance. The hon. Member for South Norfolk has hit on an issue that ought to be thought about a great deal more than perhaps it has been. Settlements such as Fulton and Northcote-Trevelyanwhich is another, even older onestill influence the civil service. We need to look at all those things in the light of the 21st century, rather than the 19th. He makes perfectly reasonable observations.
	I want to say a few things about some of the more technical issues that have been mentioned, perhaps in passing. I am happy to announce that the last piece of the jigsaw in the Government implementing our response to Lord Sharman's report on audit and accountability in central Government is now in place. Hon. Members will be aware that, until recently, the Comptroller and Auditor General was not eligible to audit non-departmental public body companies, but provisions in the Companies Act 2006 clear the way for him to do so with effect from financial year 2008-09. There are separate provisions for profit-making and non-profit-making companies, but happily they are now in place.
	The Comptroller and Auditor General now has public audit responsibility for 26 non-profit-making NDPB companies. I understand that 24 companies, which are either profit making or have profit-making subsidiaries, have also agreed to come under the auspices of the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit purposes.
	I share the Committee's disappointmentthis is a point that the Chairman of the Committee brought to our attention in his opening commentsthat the implementation of the new governance arrangements for the National Audit Office has been delayed, along with the constitutional renewal Bill. However, the Public Accounts Commission has seen the draft provisions in near final form and the Treasury is ready to proceed as soon as a decision is taken on the Bill's timing.
	I welcome other progress in this area, such as the appointment of Sir Andrew Likierman as the new chair of the National Audit Office and of Mr. Amyas Morse as the new Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Member for Gainsborough told us about the selection panel, which he chaired, and expressed his confidence in the choice that has been made. The formal appointment of Mr. Morse will follow, through a motion in Parliament. I am glad that he can take up his appointment on 1 June.
	I was interested to read the transcript of the first ever pre-appointment hearing that the Committee has held. The Committee gauged Mr. Morse's views on a wide range of issues. I note that he has ambitions for the NAO in improving the efficiency, cost efficiency and functional efficiency of government. We share those ambitions and I welcome the fact that Mr. Morse wants to work with Departments and the Treasury to progress that. Progress and a push from the NAO, as well as from the Treasury, have a good record in achieving change, which we all wish to see.
	Our Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, explained that the Government would simplify our reporting to Parliament by bringing together the processes for planning, parliamentary approval and reporting of public spending on a more consistent basis. I hope that that responds to some of the worries expressed by the hon. Member for Harwich, and it recognises the point made by the hon. Member for Southport about what are known as the clear line of sight changes, or the alignment review.
	We made it clear that the Government would consult widely on the detailed changes needed to implement what is a major reform of parliamentary scrutiny, which is designed to make the system of Government finance easier to understand and operate, and to improve Government accountability to the House.
	On 28 February, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and the Chairs of a number of other House Committees, drawing their attention to the parliamentary memorandumwhich was published on 5 March as a Command Paper, Cm. 7567setting out our formal proposals for achieving better alignment between budgets, estimates and accounts.
	The proposals in the memorandum will result in a simpler system, with a single set of numbers, which is more transparent, more comprehensive and easier to use. It will improve public debate and understanding through enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of Government. I believe that the proposals are fully consistent with Parliament's wishes. We would welcome Parliament's agreement to the detailed proposal by the summer recess, so that we can start implementing the new arrangements from 2010-11.
	In closing, I again pay tribute to the work of the Committee, which proves its value every time it sits, and demonstrates its value in these debates. On behalf of the Government, I also thank Tim Burr, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough quite properly did in his opening remarks. Mr. Burr has displayed impressive abilities as Comptroller and Auditor General, not least because he took on the role on an interim basis pending the appointment of a successor. He commands the respect of the Government, and all in the House, as he has guided and led the National Audit Office through that period of transition. We need the National Audit Office to hold the Government to account, and Mr. Burr is courageous in ensuring that that continues. I wish him well for the future.
	We all know that the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee together provide a valuable public service. We have seen evidence of that again today, if we doubted it. Improvements have been made, and as always in this continuous revolutionto use the words of the Committee Chairmanthere is scope for even more improvement. I hope and believe that we will see that in future.

Alan Duncan: It need not be broadcast live; I believe that it was not on the last occasion. There are other issues, such as access and the use of any Galleries. My personal view is that only the secure Gallery should be used; parents may want to watch their children perform in the debate. There is the question of whether the Division Lobbies should be used. Frankly, if the proposal goes ahead, it would be illogical not to allow the young people to learn how to vote.

Alan Duncan: I have not spoken to any of the individual participants, but I have spoken with a number of people who observed their proceedings, and every single person to whom I spoke said that that the participants behaved in an impeccable and impressive way, and were excited and thrilled. Everything that they did was a credit to them, and indeed to the sort of processes that we would like to see them observe. As an experiment, it was 100 per cent. successful and laudable.
	The question remains of whether this House would like those young peopleyouth parliamentarians, as they see themselvesto be able to sit on the leather Benches, which all of us have fought very hard to do. It ends up being a decision on whether we think that what we have done is so fantastic that no one else should be allowed just to get that little tingle of excitement from feeling that they might one day be able to do what all of us have done.
	We are not the permanent stewards of this place. We are passing through it, and for democracy to survive, other generations will have to replace us. Why, under the right terms and conditions and following the right rules, do we not allow them that thrill and excitement and hope that perhaps in a few years a genuinely elected Member of Parliament will say that their inspiration for politics derived in part from that day when they were experimenting, sitting here and getting the excitement of this place, and they suddenly realised that politics does matter, that Parliament does matter, and that a senior group of elected parliamentarians gave them the privilege and the permission to do it for just a day?

Martin Salter: I have another problem for Members opposite who feel that their traditions, their security or even their very being would be threatened by some young people meeting once a year in this place. The records show that the House authorities have identified the fact that asbestos exists in this building. As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have been considering the possibility of relocating us across the roadI think to the Queen Elizabeth centrewhile the work takes place. I am afraid that the traditions of this place may yet be subject to health and safety legislation. When we are away and the contractors are in this place removing the asbestos, goodness knows, treason may happen. A building workera working-class personmay end up sitting on the green Benches, and what a terrible thing that would be.

Martin Salter: If I am ever elected to the Muslim Council of Britain or the women's institute, I may make similar arguments, but I am not. I am an elected Member of this place and I want to open it up to the next generation of voters, who I hope will form a House of Commons that is more progressive, liberal and open-minded than what we have heard from some parts of the ChamberI use the word liberal advisedly.
	The arguments are so clear and overpowering that we do not need to get stuck in process. In the few minutes before I conclude, I want to give those in the UK Youth Parliament a voice. We have been talking at them, rather than about what they might do, what they might get out of the experience or what they might feel. Let me read into the record what the chief executive of the UK Youth Parliament said only a couple of days ago. He is a gentleman called Andy Hamflett and he gave evidence to the Speaker's Conference in Parliament, highlighting how politicians could be doing more to reach out to young people. Speaking about the Speaker's Conference, Andy said:
	It was a fantastic opportunity to celebrate the great that work that Local Authorities and young people undertake as part of the UKYP partnership...Many ideas were discussed, but for me the unifying theme was that young people from diverse communities often feel disconnected from Parliament because they cannot see role models representing them in the House. They need to see people like themselves in representative positions to believe that it can be done.
	I therefore made the point that if Parliament really wants to open its doors to young people, a very simple first step would be to allow Members of Youth Parliament to sit in the House of Commons chamber. It would be the perfect opportunity for young people across the country to see the fantastic diversity of Members of Youth Parliament, and to inspire them to take their own steps to get involved in politics and decision making.

Nicholas Winterton: What I am saying is that people fight elections to enable them to sit on these green Benches, and we should not underestimate the status of being elected to come and take a seat in this House. The House is easily carried away, perhaps on what people believe to be political correctness and appealing to young people. If there were the referendum that Labour Members have talked about, I wonder whether its result would be what they believe.
	I say, in particular to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who, sadlyI say this with emphasis and sincerityis leaving the House at the next election, and we will be deprived of his outspoken comments that occasionally enliven debates in this place

Christopher Chope: In the light of the helpful intervention by the Deputy Leader of the House, does my hon. Friend accept that the Administration Committee, which is already keen to have a report on the subject, is the appropriate vehicle for consideration of the detail of this proposal?

Nicholas Winterton: I think that I have made the position clear. I am not sure whether the Deputy Leader of the House is actually sympathetic to the idea that there should be further debate on the subject in the light of additional information that the Government will provide on the basis that, once a year, the Chamber might be made available to the UK Youth Parliament.
	Let me return to my fundamental objection. I fought long and hard to get into the House. There are people who fought many more elections before they got into the House, and I respect them for their determination and commitment to serve this nation as Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. I repeat that I take the views expressed by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), very seriously indeed.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Planning and Development (Cheshire)